Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> The proposed exit criteria are in a separate thread, but essentially
>>> are:
>>>
>>> For a set of tests based on HTML, CSS 2.1 selectors and this spec,
>>> there are two implementations that pass every test interoperably, and
>>> do not fail any "additional" tests based on misimplementing this
>>> specification (i.e. failures based on not supporting a technology used
>>> only in the additional tests, such as MathML, will not be taken into
>>> account).
>>
>> Request for clarification. Does this require:
>>
>> A) There must be two implementations, each of which passes every test
>> (i.e. the same two implementations pass all the tests); or
>> B) For each test, there are two implementations that pass it (but not
>> necessarily the same two for every test).
>>
>> It reads like (A), but I have seen similar wording interpreted as (B) in
>> the context of other specs...
>
> The intention in the original exit criteria proposal [1] was for there
> to be at least two complete implementations, each passing 100% of the
> baseline tests. I can make this clearer in the exit criteria as follows:
>
> ---
>
> There must be at least two complete, independent implementations, each
> of which must pass 100% of the baseline testsuite and should pass
> additional tests, dependent on the following conditions:
>
> * The implementations must be native implementations in shipping
> products. (JavaScript library implementations don't count).
>
What is the reason for the native implementation requirement?
Is it W3C policy?
Sean